AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govinda Menon, J.—It has been repeatedly held, not only by their Lordships of the Privy Council, but also by this Court that the omission
to strictly comply with the terms of Section 342, Criminal P.C., vitiates the trial In ''Dwaraknath Varma v. Emperor 64 Mad L. J. 466 the Privy
Council held that Section 342 , Criminal P. C., ought to be strictly followed. This decision has been followed in "Sangama Naicker", In re: 59 Mad
622.
In page 20 of the printed papers we find the questions put to the accused u/s 342 , Criminal P.C., as follows:
Q: The statement made by you in the committing Court is read out to you now. Is it the one made by you and is it correct?
A: Yes, it is correct (marked as Ex. P. 16)
Q: Do you wish to say anything more in addition to that statement?
A: Nothing.
Q: Are there witnesses on your behalf?
A: no.
We do not find any question put by the learned Judge asking the accused to explain the circumstances that have been proved against him. In our
opinion, the mere fact that the accused is asked whether he wishes to say anything more in addition to what he has stated in the committing Court is
not sufficient. The learned Public prosecutor invites our attention to the fact that in the committal Court there has been a complete and full
questioning of the accused, but that in our opinion is not sufficient because it is obligatory upon the Sessions Judge to put the evidence against the
accused to him and elicit answers from him. Therefore, we are of opinion that the trial is vitiated by this circumstance.
The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused will be retried by the present Sessions Judge of Cuddappah.